It looks as if, once again, the political purists of the left may unwittingly enable an incompetent fool to be their actual choice for president of the United States.

Back in the 2000 election, environmental activist Ralph Nader ran for president as the candidate of the Green and Citizens parties. Nader persuaded many normally Democratic voters to follow him in his thoughtless and disastrous third-party political tragedy.

Other factors were, of course, at play in the drama of that election: flawed ballots, stopping the vote count in Florida and partisan actions by the Florida and U.S Supreme courts.

But the initial siphoning off of votes for Al Gore by Nader was the first and primary cause of the eventual Bush victory.

Nader won almost 100,000 votes from Democrats in Florida and 23,000 votes in New Hampshire, votes which, if given to Gore, would have provided him the needed Electoral College margin to win the presidential campaign.

That, however, was not the way the cookie crumbled.

George W. Bush was elected. In the White House, he led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, with the human consequence of millions of dead and displaced people and the political inevitability of chaos and misery throughout the Middle East.

Sadly, it looks as if there is a political déjà vu approaching in the 2016 election.

Yes, Hillary Clinton has a lead over Donald Trump. Many anti-Clinton folk also hate Trump. But while most of us expect Clinton to win, most polls show Trump not that far behind.

And while there is no major third-party candidate in the race this time, there is a virtual stand-in for Nader from many Bernie Sanders supporters who may sit out this race because Clinton, for them, is not sufficiently pure politically.

The consequences of the possible election of Trump are frightening. Major differences between Trump and Clinton include:

• Trump essentially rejects all public health programs that are comparable to our existing Affordable Care Act while Clinton hopes to expand these services.

• Clinton is pro-choice for all women and supports Roe v. Wade while Trump not only opposes choice but has in the past proposed punishment for women receiving abortions.

• In addition to building a monumental wall along the border with Mexico, Trump hopes to deport 12 million undocumented immigrants. Clinton will provide a path to citizenship for these newcomers to the country.

• While Clinton will support a ban on assault weapons and a mandatory background check on all gun buyers, Trump opposes any kind of gun control.

Although Sanders has given full and public support for Clinton since her nomination, his unintended but lingering presence in the Nov. 8 election sadly minimizes Clinton in the eyes of some left-liberals.

With only days to go until the election, Sanders supporters must moderate their dissatisfaction with Clinton and her campaign, do an actual comparison of the candidates, and recognize that Clinton is the only candidate experienced and competent enough to assume the presidency. They must vote!